If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as are Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel. Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or two, they will combine forces to attack Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.

So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?

Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak's opponents, and he probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different story.

And if that weren't bad enough, Obama's latest comment to Egypt's leader is that "an orderly transition ... must begin now."

Must begin. Now.

Simply stunning.

Juxtapose Obama's statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: "Reform or be overthrown." Egypt: "an orderly transition ... must begin now." Iran: "It is not productive ... to be seen as meddling." Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb'allah have "legitimate claims," and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching out to "moderate" Hezb'allah members last spring. Hezb'allah moderates?

The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far-left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this president's un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.

Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers's, Bernardine Dohrn's, Code Pink's Medea Benjamin's and Jody Evans's trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made multiple visits to the White House.

Obama's breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin, and Evans. Sure.

A few years back, I cited a quote by Lynn Stewart, the National Lawyers Guild attorney jailed for helping blind sheikh Omar Adel Raman foment terror from his New York jail cell. One might think that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women's rights, murders homosexuals, and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck, Stewart said:

They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination. ... My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries ... to liberate.

" ... movements within their own countries ... to liberate." Given recent developments, Stewart's statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about "liberation," they are really talking about communism.

It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. Almost since the beginning, Muslim terrorist organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or its Middle Eastern surrogates.

Yasser Arafat's PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and they said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al-Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezb'allah is the de facto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba'athist Syria.

David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.

It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt's sham "democracy movement" is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies and, by extension, our own country.

Unfortunately, his view is shared by some Republicans who are so in love with the idea of "democracy" that it doesn't matter to them that the "democrats" in this case include fanatic mass murderers. At best, it can be seen only as incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak's enemies. People make the same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error of assuming that just because a country's current leadership is flawed and "undemocratic," that automatically means that someone else would do better. Newsflash: they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because people who take power by street riot have no interest in "democracy."

If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies allied with our communist enemies. Israel will be the first target, and with Obama's radically anti-Israel orientation, the Israelis will stand alone. We will be next. One wonders if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American flags.

The biggest problems mankind has endured in the middle east have been presented by the fire-breathing mullahs and rabbis. If they would stay out of what should be secular problems, the Arabs and Jews could have sorted this problem out centuries ago.
And I’m not leaving out the Catholic bishops. If mankind had spent half the energy on real problems, rather than man-made struggles over whose prince would reign in what area, imagine the rate at which science and technology could have advanced. We could have had, for examples, the transportation and communications we enjoy now but a century or two ago, and imagine where we might be now: Cancer cured, possibly. Polio wiped out. Clean water for more than 50% of the worlds population. Famine eliminated.
But as a practical matter, the biggest threat we face now is Islam, and Israel is our forward listening post.
If muslims cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that others (`infidels’) believe differently in matters of faith, and that jihad will result only in further death and destruction, then we will continue to waste lives, time and resources battling these murderous children of Allah.
Just sayin’ IMHO, `umbly submitted.

81
posted on 02/03/2011 7:25:19 PM PST
by tumblindice
('Bi-partisanship': we all pretend the Democrats are still in charge)

If there is to be another Holocaust, this time it will be nuclear and the Jews in Israel will not be the only souls burning.

I would say we can hope wiser heads will prevail before Israel is pushed too far but there are no wiser heads. Not in Europe and not in the USA either - at least not among those in power.

The USA was the greatest hope of civilized man but the election and support of Obama shows that as a country we are now far into Moonbat territory. When the boot comes down on the Jew, Obama will be cheering.

Wars and rumors of wars. Christ compared the end of the world to birth pains; they increase in frequency and severity.

I’m not religious either. But I believe in God and I believe Christ is God’s Son. So, the question is, “IF we could get to heaven by being good, why would God allow His Son to die a horrific death on the cross?” I conclude that it must have been necessary both for the purpose of justice and mercy. His holiness requires judgement and His love provides undeserved grace.

He paid a debt He didn’t owe because we owe a debt we cannot pay.

96
posted on 02/03/2011 8:11:10 PM PST
by killermosquito
(Buffalo (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)

“The Samson option will ensure that if Israel falls there will be a ring of states surrounding Israel that are radioactive cinders.”

I would like to believe you’re right, but I sense that if that moment comes — when the Jews finally face their own end — that their inner “Jewish guilt” will prevent them from pulling the trigger en masse on their enemies. As Jews, it’s simply “not in them” to do so.

This is an angst that seems to thrive within Jews (particulary American Jews, but not limited to them), creating an almost palpable “ethnic guilt” that compels Jews to support liberalism and policies which seem destined to denigrate and marginalize themselves. It’s as if their success as a people is a weight upon their shoulders for which they must atone to others less fortunate and savvy.

After the Holocaust, the Jewish refrain became “never again!”

But when that moment comes, I predict that they will lose their nerve.

That’s only my opinion, and I would like to be proven wrong.
We shall see.

I understand - but there are so many Arabs - so much hate and rage... These people want to kill the Israelis. They hate everybody, but especially the Jews. It’s hard to watch David going up against a hundred Goliaths. Isn’t there any other option?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.